Grammatical processing in language learners

By Harald Clahsen, Claudia Felser. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2006

1,059 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd3aab0902597018f561a658147ccd7a08eecfac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: the contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness (2017, background): “This is possibly the case because in processing non-native speakers are mainly guided by lexical and semantic cues but not by syntactic cues (Clahsen & Felser, 2006).”
SOME NOTES ON THE SHALLOW STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS (2017, methodology): “We suggested earlier that L2 learners’ parsing problems might specifically pertain to the computation of discontinuous, grammatically mediated dependencies (Clahsen & Felser, 2006c), but recent findings suggest that an even more nuanced characterization is needed.”
Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview (2006, background): “…have been noted in the areas of lexical retrieval, structural ambiguity resolution, and detection of acoustic distinctions in the areas of syllable stress, consonant voicing, and vowel length (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Dussias, 2004; Dupoux & Peperkamp, 2002; Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2004).”
The role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch (2011, background): “Clahsen and Felser (2006) propose that monolingual children possess qualitatively similar processing abilities to mature native speakers, but these abilities are more readily affected by working memory capacity.”
The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments (2016, neutral): “It of course remains possible that native and non-native linguistic representations differ in subtle ways (e.g., in relation to unbounded dependencies; Clahsen and Felser 2006).”
An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail? (2014, background): “106, 119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001 Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: manipulations”
Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap* (2012, methodology): “According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a), L2 learners’ processing does not include abstract syntactic features, such as intermediate gaps of wh-movement, but relies more on lexical/semantic information.”
Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing (2011, background): “…processing studies indicate that even highly advanced learners may underuse morphosyntactic information when processing the L2 input in real time, but without necessarily performing any worse than native speakers in off-line judgment or comprehension tasks (for a review see Clahsen & Felser, 2006).”
Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review (2010, background): “Again, there is abundant empirical evidence for the poorer syntactic processing skills of the L2 listener (Clahsen and Felser, 2006), and the L2 disadvantage here can even be observed when L2 proficiency is high (Sorace, 1993).”
Understanding the Consequences of Bilingualism for Language Processing and Cognition (2013, background): “Thus, Costa et al. (2009) argue that the bilingual advantage is in “monitoring” and Bialystok (2011) attributes the advantage to “coordination”.”
The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance* (2009, background): “…(transparency) in addition to mechanisms specific to processing, research explores how and whether grammatical knowledge is used in L2 processing system and whether the same processing mechanisms operate in the L2 as in native processing (e.g. Clahsen and Felser, 2006; Desmet and Duyck, 2007).”
ONLINE PRONOUN RESOLUTION IN L2 DISCOURSE: L1 Influence and General Learner Effects (2008, background): “…are less able to use syntactic information effectively online in contrast to native speakers and that they overrely on lexical , pragmatic , or contextual information , or a combination of these , to compensate ~ Clahsen & Felser , 2006 ; Marinis et al +, 2005 ; Papadopoulou & Clahsen , 2003 !”